2008 (10) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tmental Representative (DR) for appellant Sh. P. R. Mullick, Adv. for respondent [Order per S. S. Kang, Vice President] - Common issue is involved, therefore, these appeals are taken up together.  The revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents are not providing the service of tour operator. The Commissioner (Appeals) after .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt of Madras in the case of Secy. Federn. Of Bus-operators Assn. of T.N. vs UOI reported in 2001 (134) ELT. 618 (Mad). 3. The contention of the respondent is that the buses, in question, are not tourist vehicle as provided under Rule 128 of Central Motor Vehicles Act,1989. As per the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 'tourist vehicle' means  a 'contract carriage' constructed or adapted and equipped .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... perators Assn. of T.N.(supra) Hon'ble High Court in para 14 held as under: "We have, therefore, no hesitation first to hold that the first and foremost condition for a person to be held as a 'tour operator' within the meaning of Section 65(52) of the Finance Act is that he must be engaged in the business of operating tours in a 'tourist vehicle' in terms of Section 2(43) of the Motor Vehicles Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X